Gay Patriot Header Image

Thwarting the Wedding Cake Fascists Passive Aggressively

Posted by V the K at 8:04 am - February 28, 2014.
Filed under: Progressive immorality

Commenter Just Me had a pretty brilliant idea:

Maybe the response for florists, bakers and photographers is to tell gay couples if they hire their services for their weddings that they will be donating 100% of the profits to a sanctity of marriage group.

Drops the bomb right into the laps of those who for whatever reason want to force religious bakers to bake cakes and photographers to take pictures.

Awesome, yes?

Share

61 Comments

  1. What I don’t like about the (vetoed) law is that the Law of Unintended Consequences would inevitably follow.
    (A) Fundamentalist Christians/Mormons/Jews/Muslims: “My religion says homos are bad, so get out of my business.”
    (B) Racist White Supremacists would be next: “My religion says niggers are bad, so get out of my business.”
    (C) Then the Muslims would expand: “My religion says Jews are bad, so get out of my business.”
    (D) Black folks would get in on it: “My religion says honkies are bad, so get out of my business.” (SEE: PAALF vs Trader Joe’s)
    … and so on.

    Comment by Duke of URL — February 28, 2014 @ 8:48 am - February 28, 2014

  2. Exactly! That is free speech and free market. However, denying services is not free speech it is discrimination

    Comment by Tom Lang — February 28, 2014 @ 8:53 am - February 28, 2014

  3. Fairly awesome!
    I truly wish that the law had not been portrayed as the “Anti-Gay” law. I read it, at least what I could fathom of the legalese. Not once in the document is the word gay used. And what I have heard about the law, is that it mirrors the federal laws already enforcing the religious freedoms of individuals in business. Ah, if only the media and activists could tel a simple truth.
    Thanks GP- as always, you are a breath of fresh air.

    Comment by Trish Mac — February 28, 2014 @ 8:57 am - February 28, 2014

  4. Pepsi MAX & Jeff Gordon Present: “Test Drive 2”
    “Must watch – great fun video”!

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/02/pepsi-max-jeff-gordon-present-test.html

    Comment by Steve — February 28, 2014 @ 9:08 am - February 28, 2014

  5. And on top of that, tell them ahead of time that they are going to do a crappy job and overcharge them.

    Comment by Professor Hale — February 28, 2014 @ 9:22 am - February 28, 2014

  6. Tell them the people who set up and serve the cake will be catered from Chik-Fil-A

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 9:35 am - February 28, 2014

  7. And all of those businesses Duke of URL lists would quickly fail once word got out about their practices; the market would solve the problem without the need for jack-booted government.

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 9:45 am - February 28, 2014

  8. I always thought this made sense. What a business owner does with their profits is their business, and it preserves non-discrimination in client service and reinforces the owner’s freedom to put their profits where they want.

    Dan Savage and his husband recently had an encounter with a Christian tweeter who kept accusing Dan of something or other; eventually Terry told the tweeter that every tweet she sends will result in a donation to planned parenthood. So everyone kept exercising their freedom of speech, and the money went to a cause that one side believed in. Dan’s Twitter followers jumped in and raised thousands for PP.

    Funny how you mention the Christian bakers would want to put their money towards a group that believes in the “sanctity of marriage.” Marriage equality advocates believe in that too, so I am guessing you meant “groups that use the label sanctity to mean only male-female couples”

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 9:50 am - February 28, 2014

  9. Re: comment 7. It’s good to see the AZ law defenders admit that the law would have legalized precisely that kind of “I can discriminate against anyone or anything as long as I say it’s religiously-motivated.”

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 9:53 am - February 28, 2014

  10. Exactly! That is free speech and free market. However, denying services is not free speech it is discrimination

    Exactly!

    What, may I ask is “wrong” with discrimination????

    My guess is that the commenter does not have sex with kittens because of……. wait for it ……. discrimination.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 28, 2014 @ 9:58 am - February 28, 2014

  11. It’s good to see the AZ law defenders admit that the law would have legalized precisely that kind of “I can discriminate against anyone or anything as long as I say it’s religiously-motivated.”

    Still on your ‘smarmy assh*le trip, eh?

    We’re tired of your wise ass dismissals of other people’s authentic and deeply held religious beliefs.

    Have you ever considered FOAD?

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 10:04 am - February 28, 2014

  12. I do find it extremely hypocritical to be against anti-sodomy laws because “you cannot legislate morality”, then be against the Arizona bill because “it is morally wrong to discriminate”.

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 28, 2014 @ 10:05 am - February 28, 2014

  13. the law would have legalized precisely that kind of “I can discriminate against anyone or anything as long as I say it’s religiously-motivated.”

    Another voice from the miasma of righteous indignation, chaos and confusion.

    Oh. my!!!!

    Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

    The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.

    Discrimination for me, but not for thee.

    And there is this….

    Comment by heliotrope — February 28, 2014 @ 10:12 am - February 28, 2014

  14. Actually the law didn’t legalize discrimination. It just allowed business people to use religious belief as a defense. A judge would still get to decide if the discrimination was justified.

    Missed in all the misinformation about the law is that it didn’t green light discrimination nor did it even make it impossible for a gay couple to sue-it just allowed for religious expression to be used as a defense. The business owner would have to provide evidence for how it would impinge on their religious expression and a judge could tell them they were full of it if they didn’t make the case.

    Comment by Just Me — February 28, 2014 @ 10:16 am - February 28, 2014

  15. The Washington State Legislature Freedom of discrimination – Declaration of civil rights is a good place to start when trying to understand how a government attempts to codify an ambiguous concept.

    In the example of the Washington State attempt, the whole subject was limited to employee rights and real estate.

    Affirmative Action is a form of legal discrimination against the general society in the favor of a minority. That is conveniently called “positive” discrimination. Liberals, Progressives, Democrats and Communists love their brand of “positive” discrimination.

    Why shouldn’t sports teams be subject to race quotas and limits based on the general racial make-up of the community or area or country?

    This type of hypothetical can be stretched forever in the exact same manner as a person can take his feelings and sense of being offended into the legal stratosphere on the assumption of “negative” discrimination.

    Why, exactly, does a gay couple embarking on the voyage of happiness and fulfillment by getting married, want to take time to go ballistic over someone who does not want to serve them?

    This is not about “rights” —- it is all about being righteous.

    Apparently, the couple is so damned committed to the “community” of supposed “victims” that they would rather have complicated, negative memories than a smooth, joyful and memorable wedding.

    I certainly hope that these vinegar drinking masochists invite a whole load of fundamentalist Muslims to their wedding and just pout and storm and wail like banshees when the fundamentalists don’t show up.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 28, 2014 @ 10:48 am - February 28, 2014

  16. This sounds great to me. As I have said, those gays and lebians who demand services for same sex weddings are only trouble makers ……… and, are doing the Gay Rights Movement no go whatsoever.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — February 28, 2014 @ 11:04 am - February 28, 2014

  17. What I don’t like about the (vetoed) law is that the Law of Unintended Consequences would inevitably follow.
    (A) Fundamentalist Christians/Mormons/Jews/Muslims: “My religion says homos are bad, so get out of my business.”
    (B) Racist White Supremacists would be next: “My religion says niggers are bad, so get out of my business.”
    (C) Then the Muslims would expand: “My religion says Jews are bad, so get out of my business.”
    (D) Black folks would get in on it: “My religion says honkies are bad, so get out of my business.” (SEE: PAALF vs Trader Joe’s)
    … and so on.

    So? You evidently have a problem with freedom of speech. If according to the right to free speech, despicable people have the right to spew their hatred, which they unequivocally do, then on what basis can they be prevented from operating their businesses on those same beliefs?

    Exactly! That is free speech and free market. However, denying services is not free speech it is discrimination

    So? White supremacists necessarily discriminate against non-white people with their thoughts, so why would it be any different for a white supremacist to deny service to a black person?

    Re: comment 7. It’s good to see the AZ law defenders admit that the law would have legalized precisely that kind of “I can discriminate against anyone or anything as long as I say it’s religiously-motivated.”

    No, people in the private sector have the right to discriminate against anyone they want for any reason. And based on what I could gather from reading the bill, that appears to be what the bill was saying.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 28, 2014 @ 11:29 am - February 28, 2014

  18. Then again, it’s not like the kind of language used in laws is easy to understand. So I could be way off. But it is beside the point anyway. This bill in Arizona was only one very minor piece in the overall battle over property rights and free speech.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 28, 2014 @ 11:34 am - February 28, 2014

  19. Bakers, B&B owners, and photographers are just the camel’s nose. Wait til gay couples start demanding fundamentalist Christian churches perform gay marriage ceremonies in their houses of worship. This is all about destroying Christian churches: lefties hate God and absolute morals. Any church that refuses to participate will probably face losing it’s tax exempt status. This is about the war on Christians, make no doubt about it. I’m sure it will start with one of the mega churches that has been adamantly opposed to gay marriage. Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church here in Seattle will be one of the first targeted. I’m sure there will be a gay couple that insists that Liberty College allow their chapel be used for their wedding. You just wait!

    Comment by runningrn — February 28, 2014 @ 11:53 am - February 28, 2014

  20. *ring*ring*

    “Hello?”

    “Yeah, you’re the Girl Friday advertized on Craigslist?”

    “Yup. I’m willing to do any work you like for $10 an hour.”

    “Great! I’d like to hire you.”

    “Excellent! What do you want me to do?”

    “I want you to have sex with me. Half hour tops, for which I pay you $5, right?”

    “Uh…sorry, no. I refuse to have sex with you, just because you demand it.”

    “You’re denying me a service! Discrimination! I’m suing!”

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 28, 2014 @ 12:27 pm - February 28, 2014

  21. I think the left likes to call it “discrimination” because in their culture, it’s okay to practice selective discrimination (i.e. against Christians) while other privileged groups must never be offended in any way. (Gays, Muslims, uptight leftist women)

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 12:27 pm - February 28, 2014

  22. Funny how you mention the Christian bakers would want to put their money towards a group that believes in the “sanctity of marriage.” Marriage equality advocates believe in that too, so I am guessing you meant “groups that use the label sanctity to mean only male-female couples”

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 9:50 am – February 28, 2014

    Actually, hmm_contrib, marriage “equality” advocates oppose monogamy, fidelity, and the other values of marriage, and demand that opposite-sex couples become more promiscuous like gay and lesbian sex partners are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2014 @ 1:15 pm - February 28, 2014

  23. runningrn: it’s sad to see the zombie lie “they’re going to sue churches to perform gay marriages” on a gay site. Everyone here should know the 1st Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone they don’t want to – Catholics don’t have to remarry you, a church or two in the South won’t marry interracial couples, many churches don’t allow women to be priests/pastors, etc. All protected legal choices despite anti-discrimination law. “Marry the gays under force of law” is equally impossible – never happen.

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 1:18 pm - February 28, 2014

  24. “oppose” and “demand” LOL
    No, the text on your link quite clearly says SOME PEOPLE need or want something beyond monogamy. Which all straight people weren’t doing anyway.
    No one seemed to think the sanctity of marriage was threatened before the gays. 🙂

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 1:22 pm - February 28, 2014

  25. Actually, contrary to Mr. Hmmm’s delusions, people have been concerned about the erosion of marriage and family life since long before teh gheys sought to hasten the decline.

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 1:25 pm - February 28, 2014

  26. runningrn: it’s sad to see the zombie lie “they’re going to sue churches to perform gay marriages” on a gay site. Everyone here should know the 1st Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone they don’t want to – Catholics don’t have to remarry you, a church or two in the South won’t marry interracial couples, many churches don’t allow women to be priests/pastors, etc. All protected legal choices despite anti-discrimination law. “Marry the gays under force of law” is equally impossible – never happen.

    What does it matter that this is a “gay” site? Lots of straight people read this blog and comment here. That just adds to the diversity of perspective. I think the majority of gay, conservative commenters here would be able to read a comment from a straight, conservative commenter and, if they disagree, form a dialogue. I’ve seen it happen a lot, in fact. That is one of the nice things about this place. And there is no reason why someone’s sexual orientation should have any affect on what opinions they are allowed to have. Of course, leftists are different, because most people seem to recognize, with good reason, that leftism doesn’t deserve any consideration.

    And you would think that the first amendment would protect the right of business owners to refuse to serve their customers, but that is apparently not the case, at least not according to subversive leftists who obviously have no regard for natural rights. Thus, there is no reason to assume that churches will be any different.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 28, 2014 @ 1:55 pm - February 28, 2014

  27. A couple of years ago, while I was still living in Chicago, I had occasion to fly out here to Los Angeles on business. While I was staying at a hotel near LAX, I decided against paying the exorbitant mini bar prices, and set off for the cab stand, in hopes of finding a nearby liquor store.

    Having informed the first cabbie of my mission, he informed me in no uncertain terms that his religion forbade him from transporting alcohol.

    This was repeated no less than three more times before I finally found an infidel willing to assist me in my quest for a reasonably priced bottle of Stoli and a pack of Newports.

    As a rational thinking being, I was but offended, nor even the slightest bit perturbed, realizing, as most rational thinking people do, that it was their cab, and as such their decision to pass on not only the fare, but the $20 gratuity I paid for being driven a grand total of six miles.

    Vote Republican, because broke, outraged and stupid is no way to go through life.

    Comment by Eric in Hollywood — February 28, 2014 @ 2:03 pm - February 28, 2014

  28. Actually, contrary to Mr. Hmmm’s delusions, people have been concerned about the erosion of marriage and family life since long before teh gheys sought to hasten the decline.

    Comment by V the K

    Thank you!! Interestingly enough, the breakdown of marriage and the family began to accellerate in the 1950’s with the development of “the pill”, which effectively separated the sex act with procreation completely.

    The development of “the pill” was sponsored primarily by…wait for it…MARGARET SANGER!!

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 28, 2014 @ 2:13 pm - February 28, 2014

  29. I have often said, if straights hadn’t debased the concept of marriage with no-fault divorce and open marriages, teh gheys wouldn’t even want it.

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 2:18 pm - February 28, 2014

  30. It’s also why I expect this to work itself out in the long run anyway; you can’t just keep spitting in the face of nature and not expact payback.

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 2:24 pm - February 28, 2014

  31. Craig-I think marriage really began to erode with the introduction of no fault divorce.

    Straight people haven’t been all that good at valuing the institution of marriage and as a straight woman I think the gay marriage debate should focus on the desire and respect for the institution rather than crying “it’s not fair!”

    If the government decided tomorrow that it wasn’t going to recognize any marriages at all-I would still view myself as married because what makes my marriage isn’t the papers we signed for the government but the vows we said before God.

    Comment by Just Me — February 28, 2014 @ 2:40 pm - February 28, 2014

  32. I have often said, if straights hadn’t debased the concept of marriage with no-fault divorce and open marriages, teh gheys wouldn’t even want it. – Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014

    I will have to respectfully disagree with what you have written above, V the K. Gays who want to be married appear to respect the institution of marriage more than far too many straights.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — February 28, 2014 @ 3:32 pm - February 28, 2014

  33. Just Me, this is why I bring up “the pill”.

    No-fault divorce only got started when couples who deliberately did not have children began to get married thinking there was no responsibilities tied with it. When suddenly they found they actually had to DO something to make the marriage work, they figured, okay, “let’s get a divorce. You obviously don’t understand me.” All they had to do was to find judges who agreed with them.

    If they were to enter marriage with the idea that they were going to have to raise kids, they would think twice. It was effective contraception, not no-fault divorce, that began the decline.

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 28, 2014 @ 4:54 pm - February 28, 2014

  34. I will have to respectfully disagree with what you have written above, V the K. Gays who want to be married appear to respect the institution of marriage more than far too many straights.

    I have to respectfully disagree. For several reasons.

    1) You don’t have to have a legal document to respect the institution of marriage. Gays can get the ceremony done in any state in this union if they so desire. The fact that there is a clamoring for the legal document says that it is not the institution that they want.

    2) Even with Proposition 8. The Supreme Court of California said in its opinion that the only thing it did was reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexuals. All other rights were already granted. That, apparently, was not enough for militant gays. They could HAVE the institution, and the rights, but they wanted more.

    3) As little as 150 years ago, there were no marriage licenses. You simply find a church or a justice of the peace and get married. Simple. Marriage licenses were started in order to tax interracial couples who could not find a church to marry them. Now, ALL marriages require them.

    It is for all these reasons that I say that we should get government OUT of the marriage business. Make the tax code marriage neutral. There are plenty of ways to do that, that would actually benefit families with children.

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 28, 2014 @ 5:05 pm - February 28, 2014

  35. Am I the only one here who suddenly can’t get the short story “Harrison Bergeron” out of my head?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — February 28, 2014 @ 5:16 pm - February 28, 2014

  36. Why would that be awesome? I’d call that petty and stupid.

    Comment by Errrr — February 28, 2014 @ 5:23 pm - February 28, 2014

  37. No one has ever stopped gays from living together in committed relationships, having ceremonies to mark the occasion, and only rarely have attempts been made to stop gays from making contractual inheritance and property arrangements under contract law.

    This whole debate was never, ever, really about recognizing gay relationships. It was always about having an “in yer face” to the Christian right, and giving emotional gratification to pathetically insecure and neurotic people.

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 5:35 pm - February 28, 2014

  38. Make the tax code marriage neutral.

    Agreed.
    Men and women were marrying well before there was a tax code that had marriage incentives.

    I say that we should get government OUT of the marriage business.

    You can’t remove government completely.
    If state governments stop registering marriages:

    – then who gets to adopt?
    – how are child support and child custody issues determined?
    – how about a private company’s health care plans — whom will those cover?
    – who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?
    – who inherits in the absence of a will?
    – who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits?
    – how do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?

    – in the event of divorce, how are child custody, support, visitation and alimony determined?

    And if the answer is: marriage can be done on a contractual basis (civil), that still involves courts, which are a branch of government, and it involves laws covering the situations noted above (and others), which laws will be drafted, debated, and passed (or not) by a legislature, which is also government, and signed into law (or not) by an executive (yep!…government).

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 5:42 pm - February 28, 2014

  39. anybody who quotes Dan Savage shouldn’t even be worth replying to. And in the same bunch of replies, talking about how more ‘committed’ gays are… Yeah, look no further than Dan Savage…

    And about Dan Savage financing Planned Parenthood… if only his own mother did a trip to one of their clinics a while ago…

    Comment by Susan — February 28, 2014 @ 5:48 pm - February 28, 2014

  40. Jman did you realize that you just gave V all the reasons gay folk want to get married. . .

    Comment by rusty — February 28, 2014 @ 5:52 pm - February 28, 2014

  41. …if only his own mother did a trip to one of their clinics a while ago…

    Now that the loony left has broached the subject of “after birth abortion” (sick bastards) , perhaps it’s still an option.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 5:57 pm - February 28, 2014

  42. .Jman did you realize that you just gave V all the reasons gay folk want to get married. . .

    Cut N Paste, did YOU realize that V gave YOU the explanation as to why your assertion is boldfaced bullsh*t?
    Here it is from #37:

    No one has ever stopped gays from living together in committed relationships, having ceremonies to mark the occasion, and only rarely have attempts been made to stop gays from making contractual inheritance and property arrangements under contract law.

    This whole debate was never, ever, really about recognizing gay relationships. It was always about having an “in yer face” to the Christian right, and giving emotional gratification to pathetically insecure and neurotic people.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 6:03 pm - February 28, 2014

  43. Smooches Jman
    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/Facebook/Profile%20Pictures/582817_3708753840627_1329013763_3358094_579210099_n.jpg

    Comment by rusty — February 28, 2014 @ 6:14 pm - February 28, 2014

  44. Gay folk look to marriage. . .
    If state governments stop registering marriages:
    – then who gets to adopt?
    – how are child support and child custody issues determined?
    – how about a private company’s health care plans — whom will those cover?
    – who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?
    – who inherits in the absence of a will?
    – who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits?
    – how do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?
    – in the event of divorce, how are child custody, support, visitation and alimony determined?

    Thanks Jman

    Comment by rusty — February 28, 2014 @ 6:16 pm - February 28, 2014

  45. V the K ….Tammy Bruce wrote a column worthy of it’s own post.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/brucethe-veto-of-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill-i/

    *snip*
    Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

    If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action, how is that not abject tyranny?

    Of all the people in the world who should understand the scourge of living under constant threat of losing life, liberty or the ability to make a living because of who you are, it’s gays. It has been disgusting to watch supposed gay “leadership” drag young gays and lesbians through an indoctrination that insists that in order to have equality, you must force other people to do your will, make them betray who they are, and punish them if they offend you.

    Comment by Annie — February 28, 2014 @ 6:23 pm - February 28, 2014

  46. None of those issues cannot be worked out in contract law. Pretty much, Cut’N’Paste is arguing that marriage is nothing more than a legal shortcut for people who are too lazy to make contractual arrangements.

    Comment by V the K — February 28, 2014 @ 6:23 pm - February 28, 2014

  47. Wasn’t my argument. . .just a nice synopsis from Jman.

    Comment by rusty — February 28, 2014 @ 6:29 pm - February 28, 2014

  48. It changes nothing for you and the rest of the screaming leftist fairy brigade: “gay marriage” is a SHAM. And whether they’re called ‘marriages’ or ‘civil unions’, they will NEVER have the value to ANY culture that heterosexual marriages do…NEVER.
    And that’s the non-existent unicorn that you and the rest of your tribe are chasing.
    Is it desirable that gay people be in committed relationships?
    YES.
    Does it have a positive value for the individuals involved and for the culture?
    YES.
    Does it have the same value (i.e. is it EQUAL to) heterosexual marriage?
    NO.
    Will it ever be?
    NO.
    And that’s what bothers a lot of people: that if we don’t say that it’s of exactly equal value, that means we’re saying it’s no good at all.
    That’s not what’s being said.
    That’s a twisted misinterpretation on the part of, as V said, “insecure and neurotic people”.
    And those insecurities and neuroses are YOUR problems, not ours.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 6:38 pm - February 28, 2014

  49. Jman,

    Legitimate question for you. Why, in your opinion, does it not have the same value as heterosexual marriage? (If you’ve answered this in some other thread, my apologies as I’m not on here regularly enough to read everything). You say that it’s desirable for the people involved and for the culture, so where does the difference lay for you?

    Comment by Alan — February 28, 2014 @ 8:49 pm - February 28, 2014

  50. Alan –

    The differences are many, and here are a couple:

    1 – Procreation.
    The growth and advance of a civilization depends on it, and all BS about artificial insemination, surrogates, and test tubes aside, straight couples have the combined equipment to do it, and gay and lesbian couples do not.
    Please spare me (any and all who want to invoke it) the tiresome bit about “what about straight couples that can’t have children?”.
    That’s a “one off”, and represents a small percentage of all straight couples. But it represents the ENTIRETY of gay and lesbian couples.

    2 – Raising children.
    Again, if you haven’t bought into the warped and contrived bullshit that’s been spouted in academia for a few decades now, that men and women are exactly alike, and that any manifest differences are merely ‘social constructs’, then you know the opposite to be true, that men and women are different, and bring different and necessary qualities to the task of raising children. Some qualities are shared, while others are found most often (but not exclusively) in women and others found most often (but not exclusively) in men.
    If I were tasked with deciding which of two couples to give an orphan child to in an adoption process, one a gay couple, and one a heterosexual couple, and all other pertinent factors were ‘equal’, I would always give the child to the straight couple. Always.
    This isn’t to say that there aren’t gay couples who aren’t fantastic parents. Of course there are.
    It’s to point out that as a paradigm for family structure (where children are to be cared for and provided for) it would be a (married) man and a woman. This is the ideal, or the optimum.
    This is another example of pretending that gender differences don’t exist, which is a delusional crock of sh*t. They DO exist.
    It’s also another example of where the harpies of the left scream “FOUL!”, because they’ll interpret this as a condemnation of a gay couple’s ability to do a good job raising children, when it’s nothing of the sort.
    I would never prohibit committed gay couples from adopting or raising children.
    But I would always have a preference for children to be raised by married men and women, in their roles as mothers and fathers.
    Both (assuming stability and commitment) are good, but married men and women are better.

    There are others, and other commenters here have done a better job at spelling them out than I.

    The main point I’d like to make here is that we’ve gone overboard with the “fairness and equality” garbage.
    The reality of life on this planet is this: we ARE NOT all equal. People have different talents, skills, experiences, goals, motivations, circumstances, ad infinitum, that coalesce in ways that NONE OF US can ever fully understand, and so we have, often, very unequal outcomes. These facts do mean that an injustice has occurred wherever this occurs. I’m sorry that so many people nowadays continue to behave like spoiled children well past the age of majority and consistently and constantly stomp their feet and throw tantrums when confronted with this immutable reality. But immutable it is, and so it shall remain, and we’re doing much more damage to too many people and a greater damage to the larger culture when we (as V said at #30) “keep spitting in the face of nature and not expect payback.”

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 10:24 pm - February 28, 2014

  51. These facts DO NOT mean that an injustice has occurred happened wherever this occurs.

    Lousy proofreading on my part.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 10:28 pm - February 28, 2014

  52. Jman, I was going to reply to Alan, but you beat me to it. Well done, and perfectly stated. I think there should be a gradient for adoption, based on studies of children in various parenting arrangements: married heterosexual couple, unmarried heterosexual couple, committed male homosexual couple, committed female couple, non-committed homosexual couples, any single.

    At the end of the day, marriage prior to now has, with a few exceptions been a male/female institution. The memetic power of marriage’s male/female imagery, tied as it is to the Adam/Eve narrative that sits at the root the West’s cultural tropes, is be difficult to impossible for some people, straight, gay, or bi, to ignore. I would prefer to see the state issue domestic partnership or civil union licenses, which would bestow the usual suite of rights. Any justice of the peace could preside at any ceremony that formalized the commitment of two adult individuals who met the state’s requirements (nonconsaguinity, mental competence, etc.).

    Culturally, I think we gays should get creative with the ceremonies that we used to celebrate our relationships. History is filled with examples of institutions and ceremonies in which people of the same sex have declared loyalty to each other. They could easily be adapted. Blood brotherhood ceremonies, for example, would be thematically well-suited for military gay couples.

    Comment by Sean — February 28, 2014 @ 10:44 pm - February 28, 2014

  53. …marriage prior to now has, with a few exceptions been a male/female institution.

    As far as I know (and I’m happy to be corrected on this), there has never been an exception, in any culture of note, to the male/female paradigm.
    There have been variances for:

    – number of spouses
    – age of spouses
    – race of spouses

    I can’t think of any variances for the sex (gender) of spouses.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 28, 2014 @ 10:55 pm - February 28, 2014

  54. Just got done reading several articles comparing civil unions to marriage and the unfortunate conclusion I come to when these are compared by advocates of gay marriage come down to these:

    1. A redefinition of “family”. There was a time when, after a couple got married they were not considered a family until they started having children. Nowadays, it seems any social arrangement of two of more people demand that title, thus making the title totally meaningless except to further erode the definitions of “family” and tear down the traditional definition of “marriage” as the foundation for a family.

    2. Advocates want to force those who disagree with them to accept them. As absurd as that notion is (you cannot force someone to love you, just as an example) so many of the arguments come down to that. You can’t force a public official to perform a civil union, you can force them to perform a marriage. Really? And this enhances your relationship how? And why would you want to force a clearly homophobic senator, for example, to perform your marriage ceremony except as in “in your face” smirk-on-your-face childish move? This also explains the deliberate targeting of bakers, florists, and photographers.

    Comment by Craig Smith — March 1, 2014 @ 12:55 am - March 1, 2014

  55. 23. runningrn: it’s sad to see the zombie lie “they’re going to sue churches to perform gay marriages” on a gay site. Everyone here should know the 1st Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone they don’t want to – Catholics don’t have to remarry you, a church or two in the South won’t marry interracial couples, many churches don’t allow women to be priests/pastors, etc. All protected legal choices despite anti-discrimination law. “Marry the gays under force of law” is equally impossible – never happen. Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 1:18 pm – February 28, 2014

    THE ONLY THING that is certain when an ignorant, condescending leftist sh*tbag like hmm_contrib posts a comment like this (denigrating conservatives as irrational, paranoid zombies for expressing concerns that their constitutional rights are imperiled), is that the same leftist sh*tbag will be back to express his unequivocal support for those constitutional rights being trampled and ignored at the very moment they’re being stripped away (at that point, the leftist sh*tbag’s argument will morph into calling the conservatives evil bigots for having ever asserted such hateful concepts existed as ‘constitutional rights’ in the first place).

    THE ONLY THING that is uncertain is how many months and/or years we have to wait to watch it happen right in front of us.

    Comment by Sean A — March 1, 2014 @ 3:23 am - March 1, 2014

  56. @ Jman: There are records that a marriages occurred between men in the Roman Imperial era. Martial and Juvenal said that these unions were so rare as to be shocking, but they noted that Roman law at the time did not recognize gay marriages, and people disapproved of them on the grounds that they would eventually become officially recognized.

    We do know that Nero had a couple same-sex marriages. In one, he married a former slave and dressed in drag. In the other, he castrated a teenaged boy and dressed the boy in drag. This suggests that one of the partners was required to take on the role of a woman for the marriage to proceed.

    Sean A, liberals are very good at demonizing conservatives. Liberals tend not to have conservative friends because that humanizes conservatives, and may even force them to realize that the strawman they have erected is not accurate. Conservative-liberal marriages and relationships work because the partners realize that the person is not evil, but merely trying to do what they think is best for the country.

    Comment by Sean (now L) — March 1, 2014 @ 7:06 am - March 1, 2014

  57. I have been immersed in the Justina Pelletier case and as a consequence, a hypothetical has toyed with my ruminating:

    What if Justina’s parents were a gay couple of mixed race? Would the forces of political correctness fueled by extra octane of “diversity” have caused the Massachusetts DCF to act differently? Would the powerful Christian organizations have been quite so active in the case, would the NAACP have come to the defense of the 1/3 of the equation that qualified as “black” and on and on and on.

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to force new paradigms on what others perceive.

    Progressives just keep hoisting themselves on the horn of their unicorn and the rest of us are left up to our necks in unicorn crap as a result.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 1, 2014 @ 10:24 am - March 1, 2014

  58. Martial and Juvenal said that these unions were so rare as to be shocking, but they noted that Roman law…did not recognize gay marriages.

    Thanks, Sean, but that’s my point: no society in recorded history accepted and practiced ‘same sex marriage’.
    Not a single one.
    And there’s no record of any prominent moral or religious leaders condemning that reality as being wrong or immoral, as opposed to slavery, for instance, which has been practiced throughout history (including the present), yet it has also been opposed throughout history by moral and religious people seeking to abolish it.

    Only in the last 10 to 20 years has it occurred to anyone that marriage has been an immoral and discriminatory institution as practiced throughout the entirety of recorded history.

    Pretty amazing, huh?

    Comment by Jman1961 — March 1, 2014 @ 12:52 pm - March 1, 2014

  59. runningrn: it’s sad to see the zombie lie “they’re going to sue churches to perform gay marriages” on a gay site. Everyone here should know the 1st Amendment protects churches from having to marry anyone they don’t want to – Catholics don’t have to remarry you, a church or two in the South won’t marry interracial couples, many churches don’t allow women to be priests/pastors, etc. All protected legal choices despite anti-discrimination law. “Marry the gays under force of law” is equally impossible – never happen.

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 28, 2014 @ 1:18 pm – February 28, 2014

    I do so love when the Obama gays pull this line, because they’re asking us to believe their lawless black child will respect the law — or that they intend to follow it.

    A House committee investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of right-leaning groups has identified the IRS agent who leaked the confidential donor list of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage. NOM’s donor list, contained in a Form 990 Schedule B, which it is required by law to file with the IRS, was obtained in March 2012 by its chief political opponent, the Human Rights Campaign, and subsequently became the subject of several national news stories that centered on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s donation to the group.

    So why is that important?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1958 case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama that organizations like NOM have the right to keep their membership and donor lists private. Alabama, after seeking to banish the NAACP from the state, demanded a list of the group’s members, including their names and addresses. The Court ruled that forcing private groups to disclose that information interfered with their ability to “pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate feely with others” and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. “It may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure,” wrote Justice John Marshall Harlan.

    But the black child Obama refuses to follow the law and prosecute, and gay and lesbian bigots like hmm_contrib cheer and applaud the Human Rights Campaign for its illegal behavior.

    So tell us, hmm_contrib; you and your fellow gay-sex bigots and Barack Ibama already refuse to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, so what should make us think you will endorse the first?

    Your silence only proves what a lying hypocrite you are. Gay-sex bigots like yourself are not fit for inclusion in society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2014 @ 12:53 pm - March 1, 2014

  60. @50 – Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question Jman. Much appreciated!

    Comment by Alan — March 1, 2014 @ 1:35 pm - March 1, 2014

  61. You’re welcome, Alan.

    Comment by Jman1961 — March 1, 2014 @ 1:42 pm - March 1, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.